Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study adopted the structural equation modeling approach to examine Chinese university students’ metacognition, critical thinking skills, and academic writing. In particular, this research explored whether awareness in metacognition can foster critical thinking and, thus, lead to enhancement in academic writing. The measure for exploring metacognitive writing strategies covered metacognitive knowledge and regulation in academic writing. The measure for understanding learners’ critical thinking encompassed the following five skills: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretations, and evaluation of arguments. The academic writing assessment was based on an internal test. The participants consisted of 644 third-year students from a Chinese university. Three models tested: (1) the role of metacognition in academic writing; (2) the role of metacognition in critical thinking; and (3) correlations between metacognition, critical thinking skills, and academic writing. The results indicated significant relationships between the three variables, and the implications based on these findings were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quartely, 31, 71–94.

  • Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of Ll and L2 university writing language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Zhang, D., Abrami, P. C., Sicoly, F., Borokhovski, E., & Surkes, M. A. (2008). Exploring the structure of the watson–glaser critical thinking appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, G., & Kong, A. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for peer review interaction in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 357–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camp, H. (2012). The psychology of writing development—and its implications for assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffee, J. (2015). Critical thinking, thoughtful writing (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Alessio, F., Avolio, B., & Charles, V. (2019). Studying the impact of critical thinking on the academic performance of executive MBA students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 275–283.

  • De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297–323). Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A., Niemivirta, M., & Yamauchi, H. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation: Processes involved and context effects—A discussion. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 46, 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J St. .B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory-of-Mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gammil, D. (2006). Learning the write way. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 754–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.,), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (Eds.). (2013). Emotion, motivation, and self-regulation: A handbook for teachers. Bingley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in writing. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 226–256). The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedgcock, J. S. (2012). Second language writing processes among adolescent and adult learners. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing a mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 221–239). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255–278.

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 251–267.

  • Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, B. (2011). Critical thinking in psychology: Personality and individual differences. Learning Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 79–102). John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, S. R., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2015). Can thinking be taught? Linking critical thinking and writing in an EFL context. RELC Journal, 46, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijera, J., Sleegersb, P., Elshout-Mohra, M., van Daalen-Kapteijnsa, M., Meeusc, W., & Tempelaar, D. (2013). The development of a questionnaire on metacognition for students in higher education. Education Research, 55, 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, P. A., & Kozdiol, S. M. (1991). Investigating the validity of a locally developed critical thinking test. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 10(3), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R. L. (2013). Teaching and researching language learning strategies (2nd ed.). Pearson.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ozarska, M. (2008). Some suggestions for academic writing instruction at English teacher training colleges. English Teaching Forum, 48, 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pally, M. (2001). Skills development in 'sustained' contentbased curricula: Case studies in analytical/critical thinking and academic writing. Language and Education, 15(4), 279–305.

  • Paul, R. (1995). What every student needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phakiti, A. (2018). Assessing higher-order thinking skills in language learning. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In J. C. Impara, G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of Self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, L. M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). English as a foreign language writers’ metacognitive strategy knowledge of writing and their working performance in multimedia environments. Journal of Writing Research, 12(2), 393–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 76–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In S. Li, P. Hiver & M. Papi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (95–108). Routledge.

  • Schoenfeld, A. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition. In Schoen- feld, A. (Ed.) Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp.189–215). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Schraw, G. A. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. A. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–16). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroyens, W. (2005). Knowledge and thought: An introduction to critical thinking. Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 163–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, S. (2019). The critical thinker: The path to better problem solving, accurate decision making, and self-disciplined thinking. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Elrbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2012). Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. Mind & Society, 11, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp.55–88). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Sternberg, R. (1985). Approaches to intelligence. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal & R. Glaser, (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills (Vol.2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Tan, M., Randi, J., Barbot, B., Levenson, C., Friedlaender, L. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Seeing, connecting, writing: Developing creativity and narrative writing in children. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 275–291). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 22, 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F. (2019). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F. (2021). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F., & Huang, J. (2019). Predictive effects of writing strategies for self-regulated learning on secondary school learners’ EFL writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F., & Huang, J. (2021). The effects of incorporating metacognitive strategies instruction into collaborative writing on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1982675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Development of children’s metacognitive knowledge, and reading and writing proficiency in English as a foreign language: Longitudinal data using multilevel models. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1202–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022a). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022b). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacognition and Learning, 17, 167–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Shankland, R. K., Wolbers, K. A., & Lawrence, A. M. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26, 17–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1999). Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills during the acquisition of expertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIV, 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., & Van Cleef, D. (2019). Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: Students’ self-reports vs. on-line assessment methods. ZDM International Journal on Mathematics Education, 51, 691–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). Plenum Press.

  • Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. Psychological Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2008). Watson-glaser critical thinking appraisal: Short form manual. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2009). Watson-glaser II critical thinking appraisal: Technical manual and user’s guide. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenden, A. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44–64). Harlow: Pearson Education

  • Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning & Individual Differences, 11, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students’ use of strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self efficacy and anxiety. System, 39, 510–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In A. Haukås, C. Bjørke, & Dypedahl, M. (Eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157–179). London, England: Routledge.

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Project from the Education Department of Hainan Province (Project number: Hnky2020ZD-9). We appreciate Professor Chuang Wang’ help in proofreading this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Linguistic Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China

    Mark Feng Teng

  2. School of Foreign Languages, Hainan University, Haikou, China

    Mei Yue

Authors
  1. Mark Feng Teng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mei Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mei Yue.

Ethics declarations

This article involves human participants performed by the authors. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 365 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teng, M.F., Yue, M. Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition Learning 18, 237–260 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation